Boat and Omar, any chance you two can have a debate? With a potential day until con responds, and the amount of energy you two have, it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively.
Also Boat, you may want to have a debate with Dust. He made a fantastic point.
"I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a 'fake news network'"
Welcome to English, where words have meaning. I suggest reading the resolution you set out to prove.
"these things are not measurable nor quantifiable."
Anyone skilled at math would disagree. Heck your previous link assigns percentages.
"The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims"
Given that you haven't met your basic burden yet for con to need to do much of anything, you may want study up on BoP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.x8du3l5l9kog
That said... Seriously, good luck on this debate. You're up against someone who is very skilled at critical thinking.
"So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?"
1. I agree that the instigator must meet BoP...
2. I'm good with your definition, or any other. It's up to the debaters to pick one inside the rounds.
3. If one fails to be picked, then sure, I've got nothing against defaulting to yours. Deliberate Deception is indeed a good standard.
Yours is a good one, especially when applied in this context.
One piece of news I like to bring up, is when Fox and Friends cried about how Captain America is now anti-conservative (because said comic character punched a Hitler stand-in). While their reporting was awful and hilarious for many reasons, and I want it to be "fake news," it was still a real news story. What they reported on factually happened, even if their perspective was certifiably insane.
As a voter, if CNN is shown to be more fake than not (say ~50% of their stories being complete fiction, or >90% of their stories being >50% fiction) pro wins hands down. I say this not to be unreasonable, but to remind the less experienced debater about Burden of Proof.
There are other definitions of fake, but a clear and concise one needs to be specified (and soon). And please not some definition about anyone's hurt feelings, as ironic as that would be.
Your current vote is scheduled for deletion. You may of course vote again, but back up your decision with information from the debate. It need not even be a long and detailed vote, usually just proving you read the debate is enough.
I fully agree with you about conduct being within the tied range. Given what a jerk I was about the sources, I would not protest if anyone pinged me on that.
Just tried to watch the fight in question... Problem being that Farscape is now on Amazon Prime, and re-watching a couple episodes made CGI Yoda painful to look at. Episode III came out after Rygel's final moment on TV, and with an unlimited budget they could not best him.
That said, if this debate is still tied in a few days, someone remind me and I'll cast a vote.
I try to not discuss my debates while in voting, but in short...
1. You would call that an outright concession that it was a kritik (four separate times you claimed that of arguments if they were not responded to enough).
2. I did not accuse you of a kritik until after your R2, it was ironically your R2 response to topicality which identified K as your intent.
I was planning to vote on this, but was unexpectedly very busy. Still, I'll offer a few thoughts...
Regarding the resolution: Were this one done again, I'd change the resolution to remove the word "potential," but add a disclaimer in the description that the debate is discussing the fairly likely goods and ills of the system. Potentially is just too open ended.
Regarding mandatory conversion: The biggest benefits would only be realized if this happens. While there's some ugliness to this, for anything worthwhile there's always opportunity costs.
S&G: This is my sole disagreement with the existing vote. I view the issues cited on awarding it, to be covered by the argument point. Granted, I've had many complain when I vote against them that I clearly do not understand what points they were really trying to make... But knowing how the rules are interpreted by admin, is useful.
Political standings do not define what sides someone can take on a debate. Ideally people should practice arguing against their beliefs, so as to understand that there are other perspectives.
Key definitions should really be in the debate description, along with which country's standard for left/right are to be measured for racism.
I'll defend Wikipedia as a source. About 10 years ago it was not trustworthy (at least to an academic level), but any controversial topics now get protected from the general public.
The bulk of sources should not be saved for the final round (it happens, even to me), as they cannot be responded to, so are of much lower value than they otherwise would be.
The comment section is not the debate itself, as much as it is a discussion of it. Borrowing arguments from it can be useful (reword them), they can technically be used as a source (copy the link from the comment number), but it's best to avoid just saying that someone happened somewhere in them.
Affirmative Action is a poor term for Positive Discrimination.
Thanks for voting... However, you should spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Skimming around, the reason is apparently the Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Anyway your debate is not over if there is no reason, but should they legalize it. You'll just need to show flaws with the status quo, and some benefit. Con will probably have a counter argument along the lines of police shooting people for having toy guns, but if you keep your cool you'll find the obvious counterpoints to that and win.
There may need to be an extra state added to debates to avoid this problem in future. (A lockout window where new votes cannot be added, before the final calculations are made).
After some light skimming, I don't know who I'll vote for, but I must thank con for that entertaining game theory. ... I doubt this problem cyn be accurately mapped with standard game theory, due to the problem of evil.
Thanks for voting on this debate, I hope it was an enjoyable read.
Ramshutu,
I did not intend to use semantics nearly as badly as I did (I forgot the argument I had meant to use until R3, and by then it was way too late to introduce), but thank you for reminding me what a bad habit it is. Part of the problem for me is that I've really studied theology (went to a Catholic university), so even within the general Abrahamic God, there's so many different visions of that concept even within any one holy book about him (Genesis for example, has two contradicting creation myths).
RationalMadman,
That link had some really good arguments, and I do wish he had read it to refine and strengthen his case.
When I introduced the simulation argument, I made no specifications on the type of simulation, I had zero thought about aliens (or "cyborg aliens"). I intended it just to show how limited our understanding of the universe is, and how various other possibilities exist and are logically supported. To quote Deadpool (2015, #21): "Elon Musk says we're living inside a hologram, so who really gives a @#$ if I throw a few penguins? I'm a simulated life-form living inside the brains of your simulated life. Think about it." ... Had I intended this to go as semantics as it became, I would have just said God is the FSM, and proceeded to quote The Gospel about the unintelligent design of the universe.
Thanks for challenging me to this debate. I have a fairly concise negative argument in my head, but look forward to seeing what angle you've got on this issue.
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
After both debaters reach their BoP (most debates), voters weigh arguments presented in relation to the resolution to determine the winner. The default position however is a tie.
A vote based on BoP is only valid if it details why one side failed, and/or what would have allowed them to reach their BoP.
Note: my previous reply was posted 43 seconds after the libel. I had not seen it. ... It is itself evidence of a YYW level mental failing (a user on another site, whom because I wouldn't trade votes with, he used this very tactic for awhile resulting in a restraining order). For obvious reasons, I shall not be interacting with him further.
Interesting perspective, given your final sentence of R1: "...then this would be countered by cloud cover which would effectively cancel out this extra warming."
Since you insist you lack the skill the argue (your invented quotation can only be attributed to yourself), here's a lesson on the core concept you need to master before taking such a hard topic:
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
I fully admit this was a very close debate. It was while giving the debate an extra read through that I identified the conduct issue as separate from arguments.
Ouch ouch ouch! ... Sorry, it's just after a light skimming of Pro's R1, and knowing the type of debater Con is, this is going to be painful to watch.
A word of advice for Pro: Next time start a debate on just one of your lines of reasoning. That way you go in depth on it, and avoid risk of anyone pointing out that 'Even If True...'
WisdomofAges, stvitus, and Alec. The ones you've received notifications about, we discussed, and you complained about their removal ("moderation and vote reports are poor."). But in case you are serious rather than pretending to be this deluded to make Muslims look bad, challenge me to a debate.
"I already explained that the debate was about the doctrines of the religion not the behavior..."
If you think the religion itself is not peaceful, next time have a debate excluding the religion.
...
If your problem is the content of the vote as opposed it not not favoring you, then prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes. For starters, you are fine with winning for proving how many atrocities against humanity Islam caused in addition to being a comic book farce. I did not read such into your case, but that person whom you did not accuse of not reading the debate clearly found you won on those grounds.
That Rat did not respond to things the way you wanted him do, to you means no response was made at all. I have proven this to be false, but still you insist on complaining.
Why Islam would be treated to exist was addressed in the third paragraph of my vote. Attempts to move the goalpost to a wholly different resolution (one not of the religion of the Muslims), and the back and forth such, are not something I cared to write at length about; and to expect such would be counter to "I did not ask you to repeat every single paragraph in th debate."
...
Your problem seems to not the content of the vote, but that it doesn't favor you. If this is false, you can easily prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes (hint: you made none). For example, when a vote in your favor read "ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another Glorified Comic Book farce."
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. For starters, you don't even know what a rebuttal is, as exemplified with "it was Con who used them to make his case after I mentioned them." When you make something part of your case, and the person rebuts it (even if they put greater importance on it), that is the literal definition of a rebuttal. For example, when you pulled a quote from one of Rat's sources which weakened it, that was not you making the original point but you rebutting it.
Once more, that you want the debate to be judged with Islam not as a religion, is an argument inside the debate which I simply did not buy. That you want something and don't always get it, is a normal part of life.
I got to say, I did not expect your R2 prediction to hold so strongly: "If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful."
"I made a clear distinction between muslims and Islam several times." To repeat myself: Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
"The first 3 were part of Con's positive case" ... That you introduced each of these is easily proven with a simple CTRL+F, disproving your own claim "Con had no rebuttal to any of my points." I really should not know the content of your debate better than you.
Your evidence someone did not read the debate is them making dozens of references to it, to include penalizing conduct for BS in the final round... Compared to votes that you stated no disagreement with, this becomes a very fine example of pure absurdity.
Do you have any idea how nonsensical you are being? You want the debate on "the religious faith of Muslims" to be judged ignoring the existence of actual Muslims. Your opponent's final paragraph one round is discussing BoP, and you begin the next round complaining about how he did not address BoP. You're even going so far as to insult your own case, claiming that you catching a weak piece of his evidence did not happen because a vote made mention of it.
"Con had no rebuttal to any of my points" ... As seen in my vote (unless you think you did not introduce any of these to the debate), the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism, etc.
Given that you are disagreeing with easily verifiable facts of your own debate, I see little point in engaging with you further on this.
It is not my job to repeat every single paragraph from the debate.
I do congratulate you on the very nice strawperson while complaining about a strawperson. If the only piece of Rat's evidence mentioned was the 4:34, then my vote certainly did not include the words "Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources" or references to you both bringing up the historical evidence of the Nazis, etc.
Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
I am uncertain what that was I just attempted to read... And dammit, it's winner selection, so I can't skip to a conduct point deduction for pro not showing up.
Under the COC to award sources you must:
"The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources."
Think of it this way, you don't award anything because you want to, but because the debaters left it feeling dishonest to leave it out of your vote. S&G for example. when one side is non-legible "Bob's spelling was so awful, it made it difficult to understand what case he was trying to make... Plus every paragraph he confused they're there and their." For Sources you might have "Joe used sources to undermine Jane's case, Nasa.gov showing that he Earth is not flat was of particular impact to the arguments. I am unsure why Jane thought PizzaHut.com was a sufficient counter to that."
Not casting a formal vote, as I do not feel motivated enough to do a lengthy analysis of each point...
In short, I'd say pro wins: The value offered is easy to weight (as he showed it in raw dollars). Whereas con's counter plan was more about instilling a feeling that some people ought to be killed, never-mind the extra innocent people who would be killed long before their DNA can be tested. Plus the reinvestment required by the counter plan, are not guaranteed.
The least moving point to me was Hitler, given that WWII war criminals fall outside the scope of the local US legal system. I was very curious to read up on con's offered repeat killers, but the sources were not well organized (the cluster dump at the end, doesn't tell me which one will have information on anyone unless their name is in the URL).
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I definitely would have accepted this challenge, largely due to my sense of organization...
Which is not to say I agree with the specific rules cited. Things like not forfeiting and not cheating go without saying.
However, bloody well agreeing to shared definitions before the debate starts, helps to have a clean debate instead of one about semantics.
Boat and Omar, any chance you two can have a debate? With a potential day until con responds, and the amount of energy you two have, it seems like a waste not to utilize it constructively.
Also Boat, you may want to have a debate with Dust. He made a fantastic point.
"I am saying they spread fake news, not in a whole that it is a 'fake news network'"
Welcome to English, where words have meaning. I suggest reading the resolution you set out to prove.
"these things are not measurable nor quantifiable."
Anyone skilled at math would disagree. Heck your previous link assigns percentages.
"The BOP is on the contender to provide counter-evidence and his opening arguments to my claims"
Given that you haven't met your basic burden yet for con to need to do much of anything, you may want study up on BoP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.x8du3l5l9kog
That said... Seriously, good luck on this debate. You're up against someone who is very skilled at critical thinking.
"So do you agree that the Instigator must show that it is deliberate or are you using a different definition of Fake News?"
1. I agree that the instigator must meet BoP...
2. I'm good with your definition, or any other. It's up to the debaters to pick one inside the rounds.
3. If one fails to be picked, then sure, I've got nothing against defaulting to yours. Deliberate Deception is indeed a good standard.
Yours is a good one, especially when applied in this context.
One piece of news I like to bring up, is when Fox and Friends cried about how Captain America is now anti-conservative (because said comic character punched a Hitler stand-in). While their reporting was awful and hilarious for many reasons, and I want it to be "fake news," it was still a real news story. What they reported on factually happened, even if their perspective was certifiably insane.
As a voter, if CNN is shown to be more fake than not (say ~50% of their stories being complete fiction, or >90% of their stories being >50% fiction) pro wins hands down. I say this not to be unreasonable, but to remind the less experienced debater about Burden of Proof.
There are other definitions of fake, but a clear and concise one needs to be specified (and soon). And please not some definition about anyone's hurt feelings, as ironic as that would be.
Your current vote is scheduled for deletion. You may of course vote again, but back up your decision with information from the debate. It need not even be a long and detailed vote, usually just proving you read the debate is enough.
Thank you for that very detailed vote.
I fully agree with you about conduct being within the tied range. Given what a jerk I was about the sources, I would not protest if anyone pinged me on that.
Just tried to watch the fight in question... Problem being that Farscape is now on Amazon Prime, and re-watching a couple episodes made CGI Yoda painful to look at. Episode III came out after Rygel's final moment on TV, and with an unlimited budget they could not best him.
That said, if this debate is still tied in a few days, someone remind me and I'll cast a vote.
Elephants are clearly supplier, making the resolution irrelevant when we should be focused on them! /joke
Oddly entertaining. I do wish the actual sequence were shown, but with the debaters in agreement on the basic events that is not truly needed.
I try to not discuss my debates while in voting, but in short...
1. You would call that an outright concession that it was a kritik (four separate times you claimed that of arguments if they were not responded to enough).
2. I did not accuse you of a kritik until after your R2, it was ironically your R2 response to topicality which identified K as your intent.
These should really use the arguments only voting.
I was planning to vote on this, but was unexpectedly very busy. Still, I'll offer a few thoughts...
Regarding the resolution: Were this one done again, I'd change the resolution to remove the word "potential," but add a disclaimer in the description that the debate is discussing the fairly likely goods and ills of the system. Potentially is just too open ended.
Regarding mandatory conversion: The biggest benefits would only be realized if this happens. While there's some ugliness to this, for anything worthwhile there's always opportunity costs.
S&G: This is my sole disagreement with the existing vote. I view the issues cited on awarding it, to be covered by the argument point. Granted, I've had many complain when I vote against them that I clearly do not understand what points they were really trying to make... But knowing how the rules are interpreted by admin, is useful.
I've got a lot to do today, but someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote on this...
https://youtu.be/qt93wUzb2E4?t=8
Political standings do not define what sides someone can take on a debate. Ideally people should practice arguing against their beliefs, so as to understand that there are other perspectives.
Initial thoughts on this one:
Key definitions should really be in the debate description, along with which country's standard for left/right are to be measured for racism.
I'll defend Wikipedia as a source. About 10 years ago it was not trustworthy (at least to an academic level), but any controversial topics now get protected from the general public.
The bulk of sources should not be saved for the final round (it happens, even to me), as they cannot be responded to, so are of much lower value than they otherwise would be.
The comment section is not the debate itself, as much as it is a discussion of it. Borrowing arguments from it can be useful (reword them), they can technically be used as a source (copy the link from the comment number), but it's best to avoid just saying that someone happened somewhere in them.
Affirmative Action is a poor term for Positive Discrimination.
Thanks for the debate.
If you'd ever like some help, let me know.
Thanks! Had to deal with some stuff, but I'll whip something up before I go to sleep.
Thanks for voting... However, you should spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules
A mod will be deleting your current vote shortly.
Skimming around, the reason is apparently the Port Arthur massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Anyway your debate is not over if there is no reason, but should they legalize it. You'll just need to show flaws with the status quo, and some benefit. Con will probably have a counter argument along the lines of police shooting people for having toy guns, but if you keep your cool you'll find the obvious counterpoints to that and win.
That is some serious BS.
There may need to be an extra state added to debates to avoid this problem in future. (A lockout window where new votes cannot be added, before the final calculations are made).
After some light skimming, I don't know who I'll vote for, but I must thank con for that entertaining game theory. ... I doubt this problem cyn be accurately mapped with standard game theory, due to the problem of evil.
At a glance, looks like a well formulated R1. I'm not sure when I'll have the uninterrupted time to respond, but probably not for a couple days.
Thanks for voting on this debate, I hope it was an enjoyable read.
Ramshutu,
I did not intend to use semantics nearly as badly as I did (I forgot the argument I had meant to use until R3, and by then it was way too late to introduce), but thank you for reminding me what a bad habit it is. Part of the problem for me is that I've really studied theology (went to a Catholic university), so even within the general Abrahamic God, there's so many different visions of that concept even within any one holy book about him (Genesis for example, has two contradicting creation myths).
RationalMadman,
That link had some really good arguments, and I do wish he had read it to refine and strengthen his case.
When I introduced the simulation argument, I made no specifications on the type of simulation, I had zero thought about aliens (or "cyborg aliens"). I intended it just to show how limited our understanding of the universe is, and how various other possibilities exist and are logically supported. To quote Deadpool (2015, #21): "Elon Musk says we're living inside a hologram, so who really gives a @#$ if I throw a few penguins? I'm a simulated life-form living inside the brains of your simulated life. Think about it." ... Had I intended this to go as semantics as it became, I would have just said God is the FSM, and proceeded to quote The Gospel about the unintelligent design of the universe.
You should both spend a little time reading the site Code of Conduct, the voting standards in particular: https://www.debateart.com/rules
Thanks for challenging me to this debate. I have a fairly concise negative argument in my head, but look forward to seeing what angle you've got on this issue.
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
After both debaters reach their BoP (most debates), voters weigh arguments presented in relation to the resolution to determine the winner. The default position however is a tie.
A vote based on BoP is only valid if it details why one side failed, and/or what would have allowed them to reach their BoP.
Continued in Late Debate Shenanigans: BoP!
Do you want to get Maximum Overdrive? Because that's how you get Maximum Overdrive!
https://youtu.be/plc7ssXDYsk
...
Sorry con for spoiling your arguments.
Note: my previous reply was posted 43 seconds after the libel. I had not seen it. ... It is itself evidence of a YYW level mental failing (a user on another site, whom because I wouldn't trade votes with, he used this very tactic for awhile resulting in a restraining order). For obvious reasons, I shall not be interacting with him further.
Interesting perspective, given your final sentence of R1: "...then this would be countered by cloud cover which would effectively cancel out this extra warming."
Since you insist you lack the skill the argue (your invented quotation can only be attributed to yourself), here's a lesson on the core concept you need to master before taking such a hard topic:
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
Thanks for sharing that video. I do wish this debate had been that entertaining.
I fully admit this was a very close debate. It was while giving the debate an extra read through that I identified the conduct issue as separate from arguments.
Ouch ouch ouch! ... Sorry, it's just after a light skimming of Pro's R1, and knowing the type of debater Con is, this is going to be painful to watch.
A word of advice for Pro: Next time start a debate on just one of your lines of reasoning. That way you go in depth on it, and avoid risk of anyone pointing out that 'Even If True...'
Neato!
"What earlier votes? You are the first vote."
WisdomofAges, stvitus, and Alec. The ones you've received notifications about, we discussed, and you complained about their removal ("moderation and vote reports are poor."). But in case you are serious rather than pretending to be this deluded to make Muslims look bad, challenge me to a debate.
"I already explained that the debate was about the doctrines of the religion not the behavior..."
If you think the religion itself is not peaceful, next time have a debate excluding the religion.
...
If your problem is the content of the vote as opposed it not not favoring you, then prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes. For starters, you are fine with winning for proving how many atrocities against humanity Islam caused in addition to being a comic book farce. I did not read such into your case, but that person whom you did not accuse of not reading the debate clearly found you won on those grounds.
That Rat did not respond to things the way you wanted him do, to you means no response was made at all. I have proven this to be false, but still you insist on complaining.
Why Islam would be treated to exist was addressed in the third paragraph of my vote. Attempts to move the goalpost to a wholly different resolution (one not of the religion of the Muslims), and the back and forth such, are not something I cared to write at length about; and to expect such would be counter to "I did not ask you to repeat every single paragraph in th debate."
...
Your problem seems to not the content of the vote, but that it doesn't favor you. If this is false, you can easily prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes (hint: you made none). For example, when a vote in your favor read "ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another Glorified Comic Book farce."
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. For starters, you don't even know what a rebuttal is, as exemplified with "it was Con who used them to make his case after I mentioned them." When you make something part of your case, and the person rebuts it (even if they put greater importance on it), that is the literal definition of a rebuttal. For example, when you pulled a quote from one of Rat's sources which weakened it, that was not you making the original point but you rebutting it.
Once more, that you want the debate to be judged with Islam not as a religion, is an argument inside the debate which I simply did not buy. That you want something and don't always get it, is a normal part of life.
I got to say, I did not expect your R2 prediction to hold so strongly: "If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful."
"I made a clear distinction between muslims and Islam several times." To repeat myself: Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
"The first 3 were part of Con's positive case" ... That you introduced each of these is easily proven with a simple CTRL+F, disproving your own claim "Con had no rebuttal to any of my points." I really should not know the content of your debate better than you.
Your evidence someone did not read the debate is them making dozens of references to it, to include penalizing conduct for BS in the final round... Compared to votes that you stated no disagreement with, this becomes a very fine example of pure absurdity.
Do you have any idea how nonsensical you are being? You want the debate on "the religious faith of Muslims" to be judged ignoring the existence of actual Muslims. Your opponent's final paragraph one round is discussing BoP, and you begin the next round complaining about how he did not address BoP. You're even going so far as to insult your own case, claiming that you catching a weak piece of his evidence did not happen because a vote made mention of it.
"Con had no rebuttal to any of my points" ... As seen in my vote (unless you think you did not introduce any of these to the debate), the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism, etc.
Given that you are disagreeing with easily verifiable facts of your own debate, I see little point in engaging with you further on this.
It is not my job to repeat every single paragraph from the debate.
I do congratulate you on the very nice strawperson while complaining about a strawperson. If the only piece of Rat's evidence mentioned was the 4:34, then my vote certainly did not include the words "Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources" or references to you both bringing up the historical evidence of the Nazis, etc.
Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
I am uncertain what that was I just attempted to read... And dammit, it's winner selection, so I can't skip to a conduct point deduction for pro not showing up.
Under the COC to award sources you must:
"The key to sufficiently ground awarding sources points is an emphasis on quality, not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, the voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources. There must be some comparative analysis between both debaters’ sources."
Think of it this way, you don't award anything because you want to, but because the debaters left it feeling dishonest to leave it out of your vote. S&G for example. when one side is non-legible "Bob's spelling was so awful, it made it difficult to understand what case he was trying to make... Plus every paragraph he confused they're there and their." For Sources you might have "Joe used sources to undermine Jane's case, Nasa.gov showing that he Earth is not flat was of particular impact to the arguments. I am unsure why Jane thought PizzaHut.com was a sufficient counter to that."
I'll be voting on this. Right now I will say plainly that I doubt any point other than arguments is warranted.
Not casting a formal vote, as I do not feel motivated enough to do a lengthy analysis of each point...
In short, I'd say pro wins: The value offered is easy to weight (as he showed it in raw dollars). Whereas con's counter plan was more about instilling a feeling that some people ought to be killed, never-mind the extra innocent people who would be killed long before their DNA can be tested. Plus the reinvestment required by the counter plan, are not guaranteed.
The least moving point to me was Hitler, given that WWII war criminals fall outside the scope of the local US legal system. I was very curious to read up on con's offered repeat killers, but the sources were not well organized (the cluster dump at the end, doesn't tell me which one will have information on anyone unless their name is in the URL).
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I definitely would have accepted this challenge, largely due to my sense of organization...
Which is not to say I agree with the specific rules cited. Things like not forfeiting and not cheating go without saying.
However, bloody well agreeing to shared definitions before the debate starts, helps to have a clean debate instead of one about semantics.